linux-kernel - Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CACRpkdZxwz5=oTxGWBgVHfy-D9s-f03qqjypUeJj6GrpXQcEcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 15:23:57 +0200
From:   Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
To:     Manivannan Sadhasivam <manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org>
Cc:     Todor Tomov <todor.tomov@...aro.org>,
        Andy Gross <andy.gross@...aro.org>,
        David Brown <david.brown@...aro.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Bjorn Andersson <bjorn.andersson@...aro.org>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        "open list:OPEN FIRMWARE AND FLATTENED DEVICE TREE BINDINGS" 
        <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        dragonboard@...ts.96boards.org,
        "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" <linux-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [dragonboard] [PATCH 1/1] dts: qcom: db820c: Add gpio-line-names property

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Manivannan Sadhasivam
<manivannan.sadhasivam@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:48:59AM +0300, Todor Tomov wrote:

>> > + * When the 96Board naming of a line and the schematic name of
>> > + * the same line are in conflict, the 96Board specification
>> > + * takes precedence, which means that the external UART on the
>> > + * LSEC is named UART0 while the schematic and SoC names this
>> > + * UART3. This is only for the informational lines i.e. "[FOO]",
>>
>> It seems to me that this can lead to some confusion for cases when
>> some schematic names have 96board names and others don't. (An
>> example below.) However I don't really see any better way to do
>> it. I'm wondering whether adding the schematic name in
>> the comment (for gpios which are named with 96board names)
>> can help a little. What do you think? Or any other idea?
>>
>
> Specifying the schematic names in comments is a good idea!
>
> Linus: Do you have any suggestion here?

Go for this.

Generally ask the question: what does the user need?

In this case, especially userspace libraries like mriaa (right name?)
should be able to work out-of-the-box without knowing what
board it is but know it has a 96board connector.

Yours,
Linus Walleij